Rule changes for 2011

[BUDDY]

the line is the line

why would you want to let the refs decide if the kicker is over by "enough" to be penalised?

whatever margin "enough" is deemed to be, why not at least give the ref a line to work with - not some imaginary line about 1/2 a foot in front?

like having the cricket umps letting no-balls go when they're just a bit over the front crease

the lines are there for a reason

To think, Tandy and co just had to wait for this year and nobody could raise an eyebrow. Surely nobody would be thinking of trying it

[elo]

This one will be controversial. Can already see it happening now. There will be far too much protection for the kickers and teams won't be able to make an effective play on the kicker. Lots of penalties on that one.

The rule has actually been loosened, in 2010 it was changed so any contact made with a kicker in the air or diving at the legs was instantly a penalty no matter what. (lead to a stack of farcical penalties when accidental contact happened) It must be deemed as deliberate and dangerous this season - good change.

All the changes sound good tbh, better than ****wit Finch and his 2 week "key indicator" crackdowns that his refs didn't even take seriously, ****ing useless **** of a Refs boss that guy.

[Guest]

I just see the old rules coming back in force.

[Pass the Ball]

And how happy are you all going to be if the game is locked up 20 all, we drop the ball an inch over the line, get penalised and they take the ensuing penalty right in front and we lose the game? If it costs a team a finals spot then supporters will tear the place down. Common sense must be applied if it is only a small amount.

Now we know the rule, it would take a real idiot to drop the ball in front of the line for a re-start. The line is the line...

[Spanner in the works]

the line is the line

why would you want to let the refs decide if the kicker is over by "enough" to be penalised?

whatever margin "enough" is deemed to be, why not at least give the ref a line to work with - not some imaginary line about 1/2 a foot in front?

like having the cricket umps letting no-balls go when they're just a bit over the front crease

the lines are there for a reason

Because I don't want to see a team suffer for the sake of a couple of centimetres. Not for a drop out. Fans will go nuts if it happens. I'll tell you that right now.

[supermario]

I just see the old rules coming back in force.

well, if their doing that, bring back:

the contested scrum
Stricking for the ball in the ruck
and
the tap forward if there are no markers !!!!

[Pass the Ball]

Because I don't want to see a team suffer for the sake of a couple of centimetres. Not for a drop out. Fans will go nuts if it happens. I'll tell you that right now.

What if it was Souths..???

[Spanner in the works]

Now we know the rule, it would take a real idiot to drop the ball in front of the line for a re-start. The line is the line...

Wet night, ball slips out of you hand and you drop it over the line and then bang! Penalty. Pressure is on for a big drop out, you come charging in and misjudge the line then bang! Penalty. That's not the way a game should be decided as far as I'm concerned.

[Spanner in the works]

What if it was Souths..???

I said a team, not individuals.

[Guest]

Because I don't want to see a team suffer for the sake of a couple of centimetres. Not for a drop out. Fans will go nuts if it happens. I'll tell you that right now.

then all teams should be cautious of this new ruling....i dont think it takes a genius to work out how to take a drop out a bit behind the line...

[Guest]

Good to hear contact on kickers has been relaxed a bit. Some of the penalties in the last year have been like we were playing children's netball or something.

[Spanner in the works]

then all teams should be cautious of this new ruling....i dont think it takes a genius to work out how to take a drop out a bit behind the line...

It doesn't take a genius to work out if it was intentional or not either.

[Guest]

And how happy are you all going to be if the game is locked up 20 all, we drop the ball an inch over the line, get penalised and they take the ensuing penalty right in front and we lose the game? If it costs a team a finals spot then supporters will tear the place down. Common sense must be applied if it is only a small amount.

So if someone's foot fault costs them Wimbledon, should the umpire overrule it if it's only a toe nail over? If a bowler's foot was only just over the line and they bowl the batsman should they be able to claim the wicket?

How many inches of error are you going to allow: 1, 2, 10? What if one ref is more of a stickler than another?

If a player drops-out an inch over the line in a tight game, he's the one who should attract the fan's ire. What if he kicks out on the full by inch in a similar situation? Exactly how many inches of leeway would you allow there? Maybe every rule in the book should end with "+/- a few inches depending on the mood of the referee".

[Guest]

It doesn't take a genius to work out if it was intentional or not either.

i dont think it should be a penalty for going over the line...just a hand over,as one would get if they "unintentionally" put a foot on the side line,or two inches over it

[Guest]

If they're serious about giving tacklers of the classic mould, can't-run-if-you-chop-the-legs blokes, more time to get into marker position, Friendy and our ruck defence will benefit enormously.